zama@midway.uchicago.edu (iftikhar uz zaman) (05/24/91)
(Every so often someone asks what "hadith" is--every so often I am
tempted to write...but as the article gets longer and longer with no
conclusion insight, I give up. So this time, I will suffice with
posting what I have and at the end give an outline of other things
which maybe someday, Insha allah ("God willing") I will fill out.
If anyone has questions of suggestions, e-mail would be welcome.)
A. Definition
=============
Classical Islamic scholars define hadith as: records of the saying and
actions of the Prophet, and of his implicit approvals of actions (ie
records of actions done in front of him which he did not dissaprove
of).
Hadiths are formed of two parts: a "chain of narration" (arabic:
isnad, or sanad), followed by a text. For example:
(A) Bukhari says that he heard Humaydi say that he heard Sufyan
say that he heard Amir say that he heard Sa'd b Abi Waqqas say
that he heard the Prophet say:
(B) "And you will be rewarded for whatever good deed you do;
even for the morsel of food which you put in your wife's
mouth."
(A) is the isnad ("chain of narration"), (B) is the text
(known in arabic as: matn).
B. Interpretation
=================
So much for definitions. Interpretation: a problem which
modern historiography has had to face is that of recording "unlikely"
or "improbable" events. In other words, consider the modern historian
as he tries to evaluate "what really happened" in the past. What can
he do? He can read the accounts of these events (in books,
inscriptions on stone tablets, or whatever "sources" he has) and then
he can try to construct a story which would explain all that he finds
in the sources. The "proof" of the validity of his reconstruction of
events in little more than his story sounding like a "plausible"
explanation. If the story he constructs seems "likely" then one would
credit him with having come up with a good account. In other words,
fundamentally, the only criterion we have for judging the truth of a
historical account is our own understanding of what is likely or not.
Working within a positivist framework, there is a slight
logical problem to this position. It makes the recording of an
unlikely or improbable event unlikely and improbable. It makes the
recording of an event which seems impossible to us absolutely
impossible. In other words, our own beliefs about the way the world
is made up absolutely cannot be altered by history--since we will only
accept as good history that which "makes sense" to us.
This slight problem becomes a major headache for the religious
historian. How likely is it that God (who is HE?) send down an angel
(ever seen one of those?) to inform a Prophet about what He wants of
us, and about numerous things of which *we* at least, do not have
any "hard" evidence (the day of judgement, the hereafter, things
which happen after death, the effects of good deeds and sins etc.)?
So since this is either unlikely, improbable or impossible, except
to someone who already believes all of this, according to the
secular historian's world-view all this simply *could not* have
happened--it cannot be taken at face value. Thus, we must try
to explain this in terms which we can understand: so, for example,
one can speak of "hallucinations" or think of other ways of explaining
these reports *away*. Thus, the secular historian solves his
problem.
To anyone who is open to the religious experience, and is
*willing* to believe that perhaps there is a God and He might
have done all of the above (not necessarily someone who actually
believes this, but just someone who is willing to *consider* it)
the problem remains unsolved. Naturally, we don't want to believe
what people have said in this regard *simply* because it doesn't
make sense! So if "making sense to us" is not going to be the
foundation of validating historical accounts, what is?
I see the hadith as the solution proposed by Muslims to this
problem. The idea is that one should look at the "track record" of
the person giving you the account of what happened. If you find that
he doesn't usually exaggerate, usually seems to remember what happened
accurately, is not prone to deceit or lying, etc. in short, if he can
be trusted, you believe that his account is reliable--*then* you go
ahead and listen to the substance of what he is saying.
C. Bibliography: Well Known Hadith Collection
=============================================
As we stand today there are numerous collections of hadith
texts still extant, and there are numerous unedited manuscripts,
along with many works which are known to have been lost. I do not
remember where I saw this but as I recall I read it in a fairly
reliable source that there are roughly 90,000 different *texts*.
However, when the very same text is related through two different
chains of narration, it is considered "two" texts and not as one--
so the total number of hadiths, then, is many many times more than
90,000.
With some exceptions hadith texts are fairly brief: from one
to ten or twelve sentences long....(although there *are* some very
long ones which go on for a few pages...). Usually a hadith
"book" is a collection of these texts--arranged sometimes thematically
(all hadiths relating to one topic together in one chapter); sometimes
by narrator (eg all the hadiths which "x" narrated to me; or all the
hadiths which "y" companion of the Prophet relates which I know
of); sometimes alphabetically by first word; sometimes in terms
of "reliability" (thus, there are collection of hadiths which are
all forged; or hadiths which, in the collector's opinion are the
most sound he has heard) etc.
Six books of hadith have gained some fame--they are referred
to by Muslims as the "sihah sitta" ("the six 'correct' ones") and by
Orientalists as "the six canonical works." These are the collections
made by Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Daud, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah.
Sometimes Ibn Maja is replaced by the collection of Malik known as
"al-Muwatta". Others add the collection of Darimi to this list.
The first two of these collections (Bukhari and Muslim) are of
a genre know as the "sahih" (translated above as 'correct').
Basically the author of a "sahih" collection attempts to sift through
all the hadiths known to him and uses his expertise with the material
to gather together only those hadiths which he believes to be
authentic. Thus his actual success in this depends on his own
expertise along with the amount of latitude he allows himself--eg the
same hadith scholar could loosen his standards a bit and end up with a
very large collection of hadiths which fit those standard; if he were
to make his standards a little more strict, he could end up with a
much smaller "sahih" collection.
Bukhari and Muslim are only two among many who attempted this
exercise composing a work consisting of only the best hadiths
available to them. Ibn Khuzayma, much later Ibn al-Sakan, and many
others tried this too. But both the reputation of Bukhari and
Muslim as experts in the field, and the feeling that they maintained
standards of verification which others were not able to, have led
to a pretty much unanimous view among hadith scholars that these
are the most reliable of all hadith collections.
The remaining four collection are also subsumed under the
title "sahih"--since when one refers to the six books one says "the
sihah sitta" ("the six 'sahih' books"). One should realize, though,
that this is a misnomer. These four books are actually not of the
sahih genre but rather of the "sunan" genre (this is reflected in the
titles of these books). The books of the "sunan" (plural of
"sunnah"-- tranlsated as "the exemplary behavior of the prophet")
attempt to collect those hadiths of the Prophet which have a bearing
on the way we should act in our lives. Thus, though the attempt is
certainly made to report only authentic hadiths, the focus is not on
authenticity but on the *use* of hadiths. And, since "authenticity"
is a relative matter, when the author of a sunan collection find a
hadith which is somewhat weaker than he might like, but it contains a
significant point of the practice of the Prophet regarding some issue,
he will include it in his collection.
The Muwatta of Malik is a very special collection. First
of all it is the earliest of the above mentioned collections--
made in the second century whereas most of the above works are
the the third century and later. Secondly, Malik is the founder of
one of the four "schools of jurisprudence" which remain with us.
In addition, Malik was himself a formidable hadith scholar--it
is said that of allthe people Malik relates hadiths from, only
one individual has been found to be unreliable--and that because
he was from "out of town" and Malik was deceived by his outward
piety. There are various speculations about why the Muwatta never
really got included in the "six books"--the material in it is
certainly more reliable than that in the last four of the six books.
My own opinion is that the six books have not been identified as
"the six" because they are the most reliable (this distinction is
only for the first two); rather as a group they stand out because
they are exceedingly *useful* to legal scholars. The Muwatta, on
the other hand, is very useful to the follower of Malik's opinions;
but to one who does not follow Malik's opinion, the book is not
that useful....and only God knows best.
(insha allah ("God willing") I will complete this if there is
interest...maybe next week. The following are topics I have in mind.
Again, if you have suggestions please e-mail me)
D. History
==========
1. The question of writing:
2. The "science of the qualities of narrators":
E. Bibliography: Auxiliary Literature
=====================================
1. Rijal (the science of the qualities of the narrators):
2. Usul al hadith (principles of hadith criticism)zama@midway.uchicago.edu (05/27/91)
(I would like to continue my proposed "hadith series" in the organized manner I started it--on the other hand, knowing my laziness, I don't know when I'll get around to it. So as a compromise, I would like to post an exchange I had with a friend on the net on this subject...) >I am >interested in gaining some elementary knowledge of this discipline. (Maybe >some time in future, after I master Arabic, I can begin serious study). Can >you recommend English language texts on this subject? My favorite author who writes in English in this is Muhammad Mustafa al-A`zami. His dissertation was later published in book format as "Studies in Early Hadith Literature." This is an excellent work. (more on it later). As an "introduction to the field" he also has a brief book (almost a "manual") called ...something like "Hadith Terminology" though I am not sure of the title. The problem with this book is that its English is somewhat "Indian"! I don't know quite what happened--since his English is quite reasonable in his dissertation: maybe that work went through more editing? In any case, the material in it is very good... >I am also curious about your opinion on something that has confused and >disturbed me. There seem to be three views regarding the authenticity of >ahadith: > >1) the predominant Muslim view that the traditions, especially in the Sahihan, >are by and large authentic. This is actually, in my opinion, a red herring. The issue is not so much one of traditions being "by and large" authentic...far more the issue is whether the muhaddithin had a methodology which was anywhere near adequate to the problem of sorting reliable material from less reliable material. If we are willing to see this as the focus of the controversy there are two "lemmas": (i) there is no problem in disputing the authenticity of a specific hadith *AS LONG AS* the *REASON* for questioning a judgement is BASED on method and not on vague things like somethig being "likely" or unlikely. In fact, Dara Qutani has criticized thirty-two (the number may be off by a few) hadiths in Bukhari's Sahih. Similarly he has a number of hadiths in Muslim which he argues with. The point to note, though: Dara Qutani's arguments are based on *method* not on results. In other words, it is not as if he has decided that a certain hadith is "unlikely" then he tries to marshall evidence to support it. Rather, he has developed a methodology from the study of hadiths, and in the light of these methods he feels that these thirty two places are place where Bukhari's judgement is inaccurate. Thus, although others have argued against Daqra Qutani, no one has "called him names"--it is seen as a serious scholarly disagreement. (ii) as a *subsidiary result* of the proposition that the methods of the classical muhaddithin were basically adequate to the problem of sorting authentic material from inauthentic material *it follows* that hadiths in Bukhari and Muslim are probably in large part authentic. Bukhari and Muslim were leaders in the field of hadith criticism according to the classical method. Now, if they chose to stake their reputations on some hadiths which they gather together in their collections, then simply by virtue of their expertise, one would expect that it is highly likely that if you disagree with them, you are probably wrong and they are probably right....Thus, one does get the result you mention--but the *way* one gets to it... as a subsidiary result and not the focus of the controversy...is essential. >2) the view initiated mainly by Ignaz Godziher in his _Muslim Studies_ that >the ahadith mostly came into circulation long after Prophet Mohammad's (pbuh) >death. And you could add Schacht's name to this. >3) the view held by people like Fazlur Rahman and John Esposito that the truth >lies somewhere between #1 and #2. This view is all the more troublesome >because as of now it doesn't provide a concrete and logical method for using >the ahadith. And you could add Juynboll (Muslim Tradition) to this. >What do you think? What I think is this if one views the controversy as one over method, groups (2) and (3) really collapse into one: both parties make a claim about the methods of the muhaddithin--then both have different "speculations" regarding the "real" nature of events.... In my opinion, the field of hadith studies is a really profound one and no one in the West has really given it the attention it deserves. What has happened inevitably, is that a scholar will be interested in some grand theseis, and then as a subsidiary to this interest he will read up on the hadith which is relevant to his interest. Thus, he will use the hadiths in a manner which fits his thesis, rather than paying it full attention. What is this "full attention"? Well, the method of the classical hadith scholars is quite sophisticated. Briefly: you take all the "versions" of a hadith which you are able to get from different chains of narration (eg: a recent study conducted in this manner dealt with 114 different "versions" of one text). Then, say you have 15 versions from Zuhri. You compare the texts of these versions and you find that say 12 say the thing in one manner and three say it in different ways. So you put a mark next to these three. Then as this type of situation recurs, you eventually get to the position where you can say with some certainty that, "of Zuhri's students so and so was really poor in his transmission of texts...so and so was very good..." This variety could be because of carelessness, because one took better notes than the other, because one lost his books at some stage, or because one just had a better method of retaining the hadiths (in whatever fashion that might be). Having accumulated some such hunches you come back to the material and test it out....For example, suppose you find that although 12 of Zuhri's students are saying it in one way, the three which are opposing the twelve are really the most "generally" reliable. You might consider giving preference to the three over the twelve in such a case: after all, the number of narrations from a certain person which have survived is not necessarily a function of his "reliability" -- it could very well have to do with, for example, his living in a big city...or his having travelled widely. The muhaddithin's book are full of such judgements and judgements which are far more precise than this...such as statements which say "so and so went senile in year x, and anyone who heard in the period before x is ok, everyone else is carrying bad info." Then you get a list of the people, some normally very reliable, whose narrations are discredited because they heard in the period of senility... I find it impossible to brush aside this sophistication by the very simplistic claims of Schacht and Goldziher. Actually, to see how simplistic these claims are, take a look at A'zami's latest work "On Schacht's Origins of Muhammaden Jurisprudence." Basically he goes through Schacht's book and shows, example by example, how Schacht either misunderstood, misquoted or simply wasn't aware of much material which totally blows apart his theses.... Fazlur Rahman was a fine man. But in my two years of study with him it became very clear to me that he was a very sloppy thinker. In addition, when it came to hadith, he really knew very little. And this has been the problem. Everyone who works with Islam as a religion, or early Islamic history, *has* to take a stand on hadith. On the other hand, simply working on Islam or on early Islamic history is definitely not enough to even create the ability to open one's mouth on this subject: this my dissertation has shown to *me*. In any case....as you can see this is a "pet peeve." So I'll leave it at this... Wassalam. Iftikhar PS. Oh yes. A'zami's dissertation. Just shows how totally in the dark Schacht, Goldziher, Fazlur Rahman and all these other hacks are: everyone accepts on faith that hadiths were "oral" for a century or so...usually Malik's Muwatta is seen as the first written compilation ... or one of the first. Well, A'zami collects references to the writing of hadiths (i.e. people writing down sayings of the Prophet...not necessarily "compiling them for public consumption"): he find over 300 references to people who used to write down hadiths *before* Malik. OK. Maybe you can say 100 of these are, for some reason, not acceptable. What about the other 200? Ok. Reject 200. What about the 100 remaining people who wrote hadiths? The fact is, the presence of the *record* of a group of people this large who were writing hadiths down at this early period, indicates the very real possibility that *many* others, whose habit of writing was not recorded, existed. And in fact, most of the 300 people A'zami finds records of, there is only incidental mention that they wrote--i.e. it is by chance (e.g. "when I asked him about this hadith he said, let me check...then he returned with his book....") so it is *by chance* that we have the records we do have. Azami's explanation for this situation is quite sensible. The early scholars did not trust *mere* writing--writing could be corrupted; it could get erased; arabic script was still evolving; vowels are missing in Arabic anyway...thus the fact of your having a written record of something meant nothing. Yes, if you had *heard* the text, and then went ahead and wrote a "memo" to yourself, *and* you were proven to have had a good memory--then perhaps one could trust you. Thus, the lack of emphasis on writing was not because "oral" transmission was "preferred"--but because writing was not considered any *guarantee* of authenticity....